It's not very attractive, is it? But then it is consistent with the awful 2012 logo. Brings back memories of the Millenium Dome - which I had the misfortune to visit. Just like I expect communists would have produced. But then, they probably did.
@JiC The 2012 logo really is something else isn't it?I'm in two minds about the Millennium Dome; as a building it's unique and rather clever architecturally. However, and obviously, it was hideously expensive and completely pointless. I didn't go when it was filled with tat.Clarkson has a good point to make about the Dome here in his superb documentary about Brunel (3.30 mins in)
TbF, The dome cost something like a billion pounds, including the crap that originally filled it, and the sweeteners to get someone to take it off the government's hands. The contents were absolutely abysmal; which is why I likened them to something one might expect to see in a communist country. But then it was started by the previous conservative government, against everyone's wishes as I recall and in 1997, Mr Mandelson decided it should go ahead (it always seemed to be his pet toy). And it was originally supposed to be a temporary structure; so newlabour started as they meant to go on - by squandering our money without our consent. As a structure, it's OK, I suppose but again, just like the Olympics, the costs were horrendous and a large amount of the money went to foreign companies rather than English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh companies. So, taxpayers money being effectively given away while our indigenous workforce is left scrambling for the crumbs from the table.By the way, should there have been a link in your reply ?
Next up for a gargantuan waste of money, see the Titanic Visitors Centre in Belfast.
@JiC There was supposed to be a link, sorry doesn't seem to work. Search for "Brunel Clarkson pt 5" on YouTube.@Anon I'm bored with the Titanic anniversary already